- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:47:22 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030821204524.00b13338@mailserver.nist.gov>
QA Working Group Teleconference Monday, 18-August-2003 -- Scribe: Lynne Rosenthal Attendees: (PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems) (dd) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon) (KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair) (PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks) (DH) Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C) (LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair) (LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair) (MS) Mark Skall (NIST) (VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems) Regrets: (SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST) Absent: (KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft) (AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group) Summary of New Action Items: [Format: AI-20030818-1 KD to review XHTML-Print, Sept 7 AI-20030818-2: DH to draft text for TestGL on close relation to other specs Sept 15 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0053.html Previous Telcon Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0035.html 1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership 2.) Routine Business - XHTML Print Last Call Review (7-sep): Karl. 3.) Status of OpsGL transition to CR The 2 week period for commenters to reply on QAWG's disposition of their comments closed today. All accepted our dispositions, except 1 (Jon Gunderson). Proposed way forward http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0067.html LH proposed to go forward even though we have one remaining negative. Unanimous in favor of moving forward and requesting CR transition as per Part 1 proposal. KD will work with LH to draft letter requesting CR. LH plans to seek permission to publish document under old-Pub Rules. 4.) TestGL topics Publish next version Sept 20. Overlap between OpsGL and TestGL It is difficult to determine the boundaries between these documents. OpsGL talking about organizational and planning processes, whereas TestGL focus on implementation, test development and execution. OpsGL GL5 (plan test material development) overlaps with what TestGL should talk about. Another overlap in TestGL GL7 (planning for conformance testing). For now, keep CP5.4 in Ops so not lost and during CR period discuss moving it to TestGL. Need to document in the section on relationship to other family documents, the close relationship between the documents (DH to draft text). There is a close relationship and need to draft text to reflect this. CP5.1 from OpsGL should migrate into TestGL. Recommendation: if it fits in TestGL, continue to develop it there. And enter comments during the OpsGL CR comment period. Review of Guidelines: Overview of the guidelines: Analyze spec and determine strategy, Test Assertions, how to manage, how to execute, document, report, and plan for testing. Removed ‘test framework’ since this caused much confusion. All agreed that this was a good set of guidelines. GL2 divides metadata into that which is essential and additional metadata. CP2.2 “…assertion is ambiguous, contradictory, incomplete, untestable…” is here since the spec may contain bad requirements and this identifies/points it out. Suggest changing wording to where the assertions identifies ambiguous, contradictory… requirements in the spec. Assumption is that separate from the spec is a list of assertions and that these assertions need to be tied back to the spec.- where they come from, i.e., traceability. CP3.2 there is a set of metadata to be associated with each test. The problem is when tests are automatically generated and test assertions are not created. If you don’t have assertions, then what do you tie this data to? Tie it directly to the spec. Is it viable to have this assertion metadata associated with the tests or do you need to generate the assertion? This doesn’t apply solely to auto-generation, that is, tests tie directly back to the conformance requirements. There still needs to be more thought regarding auto-generation of tests and test assertions.
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 01:35:41 UTC